Laserfiche WebLink
P.11, 2 The indication that a non-selective toxicant is from coal mining is only <br /> speculation. Other possible origins should be discussed, and the type of material <br /> should be indicated through laboratory analysis. <br /> P.11, ¶ 3 Should indicate what BCI values are similar to. <br /> P.11, ¶ 4 Sulfate concentrations that limit sensitive macro species needs a reference. <br /> P.11, ¶ 5 Potential for fisheries is said to be fair. Fisheries potential is said to be poor on <br /> P.31, ¶ 2. The amount of biomass required to support a fishery should be <br /> indicated and referenced. <br /> P.12 This page appears to be missing from our copy of the text. <br /> P.13 The threshold values used for DAT, standing crop and BCI need to be referenced. <br /> P.31, 12 How was it determined that "such a stream" should have a biomass of 4.0 g/m? <br /> P.31, 13 The discussion on the low numbers of freshwater species and the assumption that, <br /> therefore, there may be little available spawning substrate should be explained <br /> better. From this text, it appears that the only factor limiting cleanwater species <br /> is the degree of sedimentation of the substrate. What about other factors that can <br /> limit cleanwater species, such as water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other <br /> chemical substances? <br /> Coal Creek <br /> P.13, ¶ 4 Should explain how "resident numbers" were determined here and elsewhere in <br /> the text. <br /> P.14, ¶ 1 Need to explain what the management activities were and how it was determined <br /> that the impacts were caused by these activities. <br /> Dutch Creek <br /> P.52 There was apparently only one sampling site for Dutch Creek. As mentioned for <br /> Bear Creek, it's unusual to have only one sampling site, because natural variation <br /> is therefore not measured and only one type of stream habitat is sampled. <br /> P.52, I 1 Discussions on shredders are included for some creeks and rivers but not others - <br /> should be consistent throughout the report. Also, there should be a discussion of <br /> functional feeding groups and why this concept is important. Discussion should <br /> include a description of other functional feeding groups (i.e. scrapers, engulfers, <br /> piercers). <br />